Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Michael Pasko and Peggy Pasko, 544 S.W.3d 830

Background

On May 6, 2013 Michael Pasko was exposed to and severely burned by fracking backflow liquids while working at an oil‑well site; he knew he had been burned and sought immediate medical treatment.
On September 12, 2013 Pasko was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma, which he attributed to the May 6 exposure.
Pasko sued multiple defendants on May 5, 2015 but did not add Schlumberger until his first amended petition on August 13, 2015 (more than two years after the exposure).
Schlumberger moved for summary judgment asserting the two‑year statute of limitations barred Pasko’s claims; Pasko invoked the discovery rule and alleged the injury was inherently undiscoverable and that fraudulent concealment tolled limitations.
The trial court granted Schlumberger’s summary judgment; the court of appeals reversed, applying a latent occupational disease/discovery‑rule analysis and finding fact issues about when Pasko knew or should have known of the injury’s work‑related nature.
The Texas Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeals, holding Pasko’s cause of action accrued on May 6, 2013 under the legal‑injury rule because he knew he was injured and knew protective equipment was not provided.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did Pasko’s cause of action accrue for limitations purposes?	Accrual was delayed by the discovery rule because Pasko did not know he had occupational cancer until diagnosis.	Accrual occurred May 6, 2013 when Pasko suffered known burns and knew he lacked protective equipment.	Held: Accrual was May 6, 2013 under the legal‑injury rule; discovery rule did not apply.
Does the latent occupational disease rule apply to this case?	Pasko: the later‑diagnosed cancer is a latent occupational disease, delaying accrual.	Schlumberger: injuries were acute and known at the time of exposure; latent‑disease rule is inapplicable.	Held: Latent occupational disease rule does not apply; Pasko’s injury was not latent.
Did Schlumberger have to negate the discovery rule in its summary judgment proof?	Pasko: Schlumberger failed to conclusively negate discovery rule; factual issues remain.	Schlumberger: its evidence establishes accrual and any discovery‑rule argument fails as a matter of law.	Held: Schlumberger met its burden by showing Pasko knew of his injury and lack of protection on May 6, 2013.
Could the trial court consider Pasko’s own summary‑judgment evidence relied on by Schlumberger in reply?	Pasko: Schlumberger improperly relied on his materials filed less than 21 days before the hearing.	Schlumberger: rule allows the court to consider evidence attached to either motion or response.	Held: The trial court properly considered evidence and pleadings filed by Pasko; no Rule 166a(c) violation.

Key Cases Cited

Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry‑Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016) (legal‑injury rule: accrual occurs when injury occurs)
Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1998) (latent occupational disease rule and discovery‑rule framework)
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (defendant bears burden to conclusively establish limitations accrual)
In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008) (plaintiff need not know all essential facts for cause of action to accrue)
ExxonMobil Corp. v. Lazy R Ranch, LP, 511 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. 2017) (claim accrues when injury occurs, not when full extent is known)
Pustejovsky v. Rapid‑Am. Corp., 35 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. 2000) (transactional approach and single‑action rule regarding related injuries)
Comput. Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996) (discovery rule overview)
S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (discovery rule: accrual delayed until plaintiff knew or should have known of wrongful act and injury)
Rhone‑Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. 1999) (defendant may negate discovery rule in summary‑judgment context)